Organizations are growing increasingly dependent on distributed computing environments and networks, including WANs, to accomplish critical tasks. As the number of users, the number of applications, and the extent of external traffic increases, congestion forms in organizational networks, impairing the performance of applications important to the organization. Network managers are constantly challenged with monitoring and controlling factors such as the rate, volume, origin, destination, and nature of network traffic (e.g., the application creating traffic), in order to align available network resources with organizational priorities.
In order to understand the context of certain embodiments of the invention, the following provides an explanation of certain technical aspects of a packet based telecommunications network environment. Internet/Intranet technology is based largely on the TCP/IP protocol suite. At the network level, IP provides a “datagram” delivery service—that is, IP is a protocol allowing for delivery of a datagram or packet between two hosts. By contrast, TCP provides a transport level service on top of the datagram service allowing for guaranteed delivery of a byte stream between two IP hosts. In other words, TCP is responsible for ensuring at the transmitting host that message data is divided into packets to be sent, and for reassembling, at the receiving host, the packets back into the complete message.
TCP has “flow control” mechanisms operative at the end stations only to limit the rate at which a TCP endpoint will emit data, but it does not employ explicit data rate control. The basic flow control mechanism is a “sliding window”, a window which by its sliding operation essentially limits the amount of unacknowledged transmit data that a transmitter is allowed to emit. Another flow control mechanism is a congestion window, which is a refinement of the sliding window scheme involving a conservative expansion to make use of the full, allowable window. A component of this mechanism is sometimes referred to as “slow start.”
The sliding window flow control mechanism works in conjunction with the Retransmit Timeout Mechanism (RTO), which is a timeout to prompt a retransmission of unacknowledged data. The timeout length is based on a running average of the Round Trip Time (RTT) for acknowledgment receipt, i.e. if an acknowledgment is not received within (typically) the smoothed RTT+4*mean deviation, then packet loss is inferred and the data pending acknowledgment is re-transmitted. Data rate flow control mechanisms which are operative end-to-end without explicit data rate control draw a strong inference of congestion from packet loss (inferred, typically, by RTO). TCP end systems, for example, will “back-off,”—i.e., inhibit transmission in increasing multiples of the base RTT average as a reaction to consecutive packet loss.
A crude form of bandwidth management in TCP/IP networks (that is, policies operable to allocate available bandwidth from a single logical link to network flows) is accomplished by a combination of TCP end systems and routers which queue packets and discard packets when some congestion threshold is exceeded. The discarded and therefore unacknowledged packet serves as a feedback mechanism to the TCP transmitter. Routers support various queuing options to provide for some level of bandwidth management. These options generally provide a rough ability to partition and prioritize separate classes of traffic. However, configuring these queuing options with any precision or without side effects is in fact very difficult, and in some cases, not possible. Seemingly simple things, such as the length of the queue, have a profound effect on traffic characteristics. Discarding packets as a feedback mechanism to TCP end systems may cause large, uneven delays perceptible to interactive users. Moreover, while routers can slow down inbound network traffic by dropping packets as a feedback mechanism to a TCP transmitter, this method often results in retransmission of data packets, wasting network traffic and, especially, inbound capacity of a WAN link. They can only explicitly control outbound traffic and cannot prevent inbound traffic from over-utilizing a WAN link. A 5% load or less on outbound traffic can correspond to a 100% load on inbound traffic, due to the typical imbalance between an outbound stream of acknowledgments and an inbound stream of data.
In response, certain data flow rate control mechanisms have been developed to provide a means to control and optimize efficiency of data transfer as well as allocate available bandwidth among a variety of business functionality. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,038,216 discloses a method for explicit data rate control in a packet-based network environment without data rate supervision. Data rate control directly moderates the rate of data transmission from a sending host, resulting in just-in-time data transmission to control inbound traffic and reduce the inefficiencies associated with dropped packets. Bandwidth management devices allow for explicit data rate control for flows associated with a particular traffic classification. Bandwidth management devices allow network administrators to specify policies operative to control and/or prioritize the bandwidth allocated to individual data flows according to traffic classifications. In addition, certain bandwidth management devices allow network administrators to divide available bandwidth into partitions. These partitions ensure a minimum bandwidth and/or cap bandwidth as to a particular class of traffic. An administrator specifies a traffic class (such as FTP data, or data flows involving a specific user) and the size of the reserved virtual link—i.e., minimum guaranteed bandwidth and/or maximum bandwidth. Such partitions can be applied on a per-application basis (protecting and/or capping bandwidth for all traffic associated with an application) or a per-user basis (protecting and/or capping bandwidth for a particular user).
Confirmation of bandwidth management devices, however, can become quite complicated for large or complex networks that generate a massive number of data flows associated with a wide variety of traffic classes all competing for bandwidth. Alignment of network policy configuration with organizational priorities thus involves the configuring of policies that manage or shape network traffic with respect fo the factors described above. For example, a policy might set a limit on the rate of a particular type of traffic, e.g., outbound traffic to the Internet is limited to 10% of total traffic over a WAN. In the related literature, this is called a bandwidth quota. Or a policy might completely ban a particular type of traffic over the WAN altogether, e.g., traffic involving an application which permit peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing. An example of such an application would be the Grokster application described in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913; 125 S. Ct. 2764; 162 L. Ed. 2d 781 (2005).
In the related art, GUIs for the configuring of traffic policy tend to be rigidly hierarchical with respect to the above factors and therefore require numerous redundant data entries, especially when applied to networks having multiple sites. For example, to add a policy using such a GUI to the multiple sites of a network, a network manager typically needed to enter the policy duplicative for each affected site.